Death Penalty as an Issue of Controversy and Debate - Essay Example

Pro Capital Punishment of the of the or module 25 March of the of the or module code 25 March 2014 Pro Capital Punishment Introduction Death penalty has been an issue of controversy and debate for ages and one comes across a large number of arguments for and against capital punishments. Death penalty had been prevalent in many nations at one stage or another even though many have toady constitutionally abolished it from their criminal justice systems. However, there are many world nations who still resort to death penalty for such serious offenses as homicides and terrorism. A major argument against death penalty is that it is against human rights, ethics, and morality. The supporters of the argument hold that man has no right to take away human life and they purport that capital punishments are inhumane, discriminatory, ineffective and prone to mistakes. On the other hand, advocates of pro capital punishment hold that capital punishment acts as the strongest deterrent against homicides and other heinous offenses. Besides, there are many who believe that many innocent lives can be saved by providing death penalty to dreaded criminals. The retributive belief that death penalty is essential to preserve retributive justice whereby murderers get the right punishment they deserve and the utilitarian argument that death penalty deters or is necessary to incapacitate prospective criminals have immensely supported pro capital punishment causes. Similarly, the growing rates of homicides and serious offences prompt one to think in favor of death penalty. Undoubtedly, capital punishment acts as the strongest deterrent that stands as a warning board to dreaded criminals and as such the punishment is essential to maintain retributive social justice, protect the interests of the common public and to safeguard the lives of innocent people. The supporters of capital punishment system consider it as the strongest form of deterrence and preserver of judicial retribution. Death penalty, undoubtedly, is a great tool of deterrence in putting an end to serious and cruel criminal activities. The criminals are most likely to indulge in more of serious crimes when the judicial system poses no threats to their own lives. The proponents of death penalty believe that it is a better deterrent than other alternative punishments such as life imprisonment. Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University, postulates that it would be a failure of the judicial system if dreaded criminals are not punished for the retribution of their crimes. According to him, the capital punishment acts as a powerful deterrent for the criminal minded people to abstain from crimes as he believes in the common sense evidence that fear of the death penalty is likely to deter many would-be criminals from committing murder (Haag 304). Besides, sparing criminals from death penalty would pose further threat to many more innocent lives. Haag points out that the aabolitionists who value the life of a convicted murderer fails to “value the lives of innocent victims who might be spared by deterring prospective murderers” (303). Haag is also of the opinion that the utmost priority of the criminal law system is to protect the lives of potential victims rather than guarding actual murderers against capital punishments. Similarly, it is the duty of the judicial system to ensure that retributive social justice is maintained, the interests of the common public are protected and that their lives are being secured and guarded against unwanted tragedies. Death penalty proponents believe that it is appropriate for a civilized society to execute its citizens that have been found guilty of murder: “[...] an offender deserves and his victim has the right to impose suffering on the offender equal to that which he imposed on the victim’ (Reiman 255). One needs to bear in mind that the victims deserved none of the sufferings inflicted by the murderers on the death row. The significance of retributive social justice is emphasized by Lehtinen when the author purports that the society, under appropriate circumstances, “has the moral right and obligation to take the life of one of its members to ensure the protection of all” (Tifft 64). Haag also perceives retribution as “an independent moral justification;” for him, every sentenced criminal volunteer to assume the risk of capital punishment by indulging in heinous criminal activities and as such their punishment cannot be regarded as unjust (Haag 304). A legal system that fails to offer retributive justice to its citizens lacks credibility and as such it is imperative that each criminal is punished in accordance with his crimes. It is the duty of the judicial system to safeguard the lives of innocent people by preventing them from further victimization by convicted criminals. It is a fact that where there are no provisions for death penalty in the judicial system there are no forces that can deter dreaded criminals who pose threats to the lives of common man. While the abolitionists lament over the extreme pain during execution they do not think of the atrocities and damages the convict has caused. Kronenwetter, in this respect, believes that people who are against capital punishment undermine ‘the deterrent aspect of legal punishment;’ for the author, “pain and discomfort are an inherent and necessary aspect of legal punishment for crime” and there is nothing unconstitutional when vicious criminals undergo some sort of pain and suffering for their atrocities (Kronenwetter 65). It can thus be concluded that capital punishments can never be regarded as unconstitutional or unusual. It is also worthwhile to analyse the cons of capital punishments. One of the most recent and compelling arguments for ending capital punishment is the acknowledgment that innocent people have been convicted of capital crimes and are on death row. One can never undermine the possibility of wrongful conviction and execution of the innocents due to such factors as ‘the fallibility and frailty of human judgement’, perjury by prosecution witnesses, mistaken eyewitness testimony, community passion against the defendants, failure in police work to overzealous prosecution (Hodgkinson & Schabas 11-13). It can thus be seen that miscarriages of justice where innocent people are sentenced to capital punishments cause great alarm to the judicial system. A survey conducted by professors Hugo Adam Bedau and Michael Radelet revealed the shocking news that 25 out of the 7000 people who were executed in the nation from 1900 and 1985 were innocent of capital crimes (Haag 302). However, Haag argues that miscarriages, unintended losses and disadvantages are possible in any established system. There are also critics who regard capital punishments as legitimize unlawful killing and argue that the punishment rejects the convict’s natural right to life, degrades human dignity and is quite uncivilized and inhuman (Haag 304). On the other hand, Haag argues that the degradation of the executed is self-inflicted and that through his murder he has “so dehumanized himself that he cannot remain among the living” (Haag 304). Haag also repudiates such arguments by pinpointing that life imprisonment violates human dignity much more than capital punishments. The possibilities for discriminatory or capricious distribution of capital punishment also prompt many to think against capital punishment. Many perceive death penalty to be discriminatory as they believe that it is capriciously distributed among the guilty. However, Haag is of the opinion that unless and until innocent people are executed mal-distribution among the guilty is not problematic. Factors such as racism, poverty, improper police and prosecution practices may influence death penalty verdicts. One can also notice that death penalty in America is disproportionately directed towards racial minorities (who murder white victims) and in many jurisdictions blacks and African Americans are subjected to capital punishments at a rate of 38 percent higher than all others (Sarat 18). However, Haag holds that in spite of this discriminatory or disproportionate distribution of death penalty the underlying question is whether “the person to be executed deserve the punishment” and not whether people who deserve the same punishment ‘have avoided execution’ (Haag 301). Haag thus repudiates the argument that death penalty is unjust as it is more often discriminately imposed on guilty blacks than guilty whites. Even when the author admits that there are no equal retributive systems for all racial and economic groups with regard to capital punishment in the United States he points out that “justice is independent of distributional inequalities” (Haag 302). It is also worthwhile to analyse the views of Tifft on capital punishment policies and ethics. Tifft points out how images of prison, punishment, and execution are associated with deterrence and protection from criminal victimization. However, the author exhorts one to understand how capital punishment discourses in criminological studies are related to the ongoing legitimacy of power-exercises within the state. While states engage in other forms of death dealing in their exercise of power they resort to crime control measures such as capital punishment to deter criminals. However, Tifft makes it clear that “there is no discernible statistical association between the existence of death penalty and the wilful homicide rate” as there are no evidences to prove that death penalty has in fact reduced crime rates (Tifft 63). While Tifft challenges the pro capital punishment argument of the deterrent effect of death penalty Haag advocates the employment of the ultimate punishment from a retributive justice point of view. He argues that even if death penalty does not have a deterrent effect dreaded criminals are to be sentenced to death as retribution for their criminal activities. Conclusions It can thus be seen that death penalty is essential not only to deter heinous criminals but also to affect retributive justice and preserve faith in the judicial system. The life and property of citizens will be in danger if the nation’s judicial system lacks provision for capital punishment. However, the judicial system needs to eliminate any possible scope for miscarriage of justice or sentencing of innocents. Thus, the change should take place not in the sentencing of death penalty but the way it is pronounced. The accused are to be provided sufficient opportunity to prove his/her innocence irrespective of his/ her colour, race or financial status. No hasty decisions are to be taken during trials and only the deserving convicts are to be sentenced for death penalty. It is imperative that special care should be taken by the jury to display no arbitrary or discriminatory sentencing and it should ensure that capital punishments are given to the most deserving criminals. It can thus be concluded that judicially administered capital punishments are necessary for deterring dreaded criminals and offering equal retributive justice to all. Works Cited Haag, Ernest Van Den. The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense. Chapter 10: Capital Punishment. Pp. 301-304 (provided by the customer). Hodgkinson, P & Schabas, W. Capital punishment: strategies for abolition, Illustrated ed, Cambridge University Press, 2004.Print. Kronenwetter, Michael. Capital punishment: a reference handbook. 2nd Illustrated ed: ABC-CLIO, 2011. Print. Reiman, J. H. “Justice, Civilization, and the Death Penalty.” Contemporary Moral Issues in a Diverse Society. Ed. Julie M. McDonald. Belmont CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998. 252-262. Print. Sarat, A. When the state kills: capital punishment and the American condition, Illustrated ed, Princeton University Press, 2002. Print. Tifft, Larry. Capital punishment research, policy, and ethics: defining murder and placing murderers. Crime and Social Justice, 1982, pp. 61-68 (provided by the customer). Read More